Basic HTML Version
Evolutionists ¿'Speechless¿¿ on
ORIGIN OF
LANGUAGES
How did languages originate
-
and why? Did men " learn"
language by imitating animals? By reflex grunts from physical
ex ertion?
To
warn fellow humans of danger? Or is there yet
another reason why we have so many varying languages?
This article ex plains why the origin of languages
no
longer
needs to remain
an
unsolved riddle.
by
Leste r Grabbe
T ANGUAGE
experts have cracked Jan–
L
guages undeciphered for hun-
dreds of years. They have cut
through ancient scripts and today
understand Egyptian hieroglyphics,
Babylonían cuneíform and Linear B of
Crete.
But
one qrteJtion
about language has
never been solved!
No Sherlock H olmes of language has
yet answered the following puzzle:
What is the
ORIGIN
of language?
Theory upon theory has been
advanced. But none is satisfactory. No
hypothesis has yet offered a logical
explanation as to how, why, what and
when language developed.
The Experts Agree
Dr. Mario Pei, world-famous linguist
and author, states:
" If
there is one
thíng on which aH Linguists are fully
agreed, it is that the
problem of the ori–
gin of human 1peech iJ Jtí/J rnuolved"
(Story of Language,
p. 14, emphasis
ours throughout).
He further adds a ring of finality to
scientific research on the problem on
page 20 of his book: "What are the
chances that modern linguists, equipped
with the powerful aids of present-day
science, may one day break down the
veil of mystery that enshrouds the ori–
gin of language?
Frankly, very slight."
Theories Abound - But
No Answer
Sorne of the theories of language
origin bear imaginative titles: the
bow-wow
theory (Janguage acose in
imitat ion of the sounds of animals), the
¡•o-he-ho
theory (a series of reflex
grunts from physical exertion produced
speech), the
Ja-ta
theory (vocal organs
tried to imitate movements performed
by other parts of the body) to mention
only a few.
But Dr. Pei points out, "Against
them stands one imposing fact.
If
they
were true, language would have arisen
as a series of isolated monosyllabic
grunts, groans and wheezes, Iater
cefined and combined to form words.
We might then expect to find
such among primitive and backward
groups....
S11ch
iJ
emphatically
110t
the
case" (VoiceJ of Man,
pp. 20-21).
A bylaw of the Linguistic Society
oí
París requires that anyone wishing to
read a paper on language origin before
the group be
auJomaJical/y
considered
out of ocder . Doesn't sound very opti–
mistic, does it! This august body con–
siders it a
tuaJie of time
to research the
matter further.
But why no research? Is linguistic
science completely
Jlumped
by the ques–
tion of speech origins? Certainly the
theories advanced so far have been
completely inadequate. Linguists are
sure of this - if nothíng else.
In reference to this point, Professor
John P. Hughes of St. Petec's College
further adds: "But a word or two
should be said in any seríous linguistic
work to counter the arrant nonsense on
this
subject which is still circulated in
Sunday-supplement science features.
"According to this
psmdo-evolu–
tionary foolish11ess,
based on noth ing
but rampant imagination, language
originated among our caveman ancestors
when someone tried to tell tbe hitherto
speechless tribe about the wolf he had
killed, and was forced to give an imita–
tion of the wolf ... or when he hit his
thumb with the mallet while shaping a
stone spear, so that
o11rh
became the
word for 'pain' ... and
1imilar fairy
stories" (The Science of Lang11age,
p.
30) .
Strong words, those. And from a pco–
fessional linguist.
But others still maintain a bl ind faith
tbat further research wíll surely solve
the problem. Professor G. Révész of
Amstetdam University expresses
tbis